Hand To Talk About

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
In that games and higher at the Bellagio, people love to bluff/semibluff at an ace, especially one that comes on the turn, simply because they view it as a freeroll funded by the size of the pot since they deem it unlikely to have helped you. This would be a great place to try it since Mason's flop action screams "overpair", and he likely views Mason as easy to push around. But it is for these reasons that Mason needs to check the river, especially with hearts coming, because that is a perfect card for his opponent to bluff again at on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand all of this to a point.

My point was more on the order that it's not only a semibluff against a known rock (Mason), but also against the flop check-raiser, who cannot just be dismissed out of hand (even though he did fold).

Also, there's something to be said for noting the fact that--as you said--this is a fairly common play in bigger limit games, particularly at the Bellagio.

Does this player just assume that everyone will forget this fact? Does he assume that Mason does not realize his own table image?

Granted, one could make an argument for the play being stronger with the inclusion of the third player, but what I'm really wondering is what the hell sort of hand could he hold that he might play this way preflop, flop, and turn, and then muck to a river bet?

I dunno. Just my natural, child-like wonder at the world, I guess.

[mike l.]

"I disagree with mikel that you are going to get a check/raise in on the river."

well then what do you suppose his foe is raising with on the turn? all his river bet did was stop the guy from bluffing the river.

[mike l.]

"Most players tend to freeze up when a flush hits the board"

not at the higher levels. they value bet far more and are less concerned with things like a flush card falling on the river heads up.

"I want to ensure that I give myself the best chance of collecting at least one bet here."

it's close but i think checking the river here and letting the turn raiser bet again (keep in mind he may be trying to steal the pot and the only way he can win may be a bet) is the best way to ensure that extra bet goes in. by betting all mason did was convince his opponent to give up on any bluff he may have been on.

one more think you need to consider is mason's image. having played against him a couple times i can tell you that he has a tight conservative image at the table. so when mason comes out betting that river it should spell trouble to all but the most unaware opponents.

[mike l.]

"But it is for these reasons that Mason needs to check the river"

i SOOO love being right...

[David Sklansky]

The fact that the guy folded on the river does not automatically prove that a check is better. It does not logically follow. Just want to make that important ML point.

[Noo Yawk]

C'mon now! Mike, you know I respect the hell out yours and Clarks posts, but you guy's are adding dynamics to a hand that only a few elite posters are aware of here.

In General, a turn check-raise at a mid limit game does not usually mean semi-bluff. Nor does it mean a bet on the end is going to result in a fold rather than inducing a bluff.
Enough times it means a hand, and a raise when you bet on the end, or at least a call, way more than a bet leads to a fold or a check leads to a bluff attempt.

Had Mason described the game, his opponents and his image the way you guys added, than you guys have real valid points. But as the post reads, going for a check-raise would not be the right move.

[Duke]

You're absolutely right, but given the pot size and the earlier action it's not much of a logical leap to conclude that he would have bet the river some percentage of the time with his very likely nothing.

~D

[David Sklansky]

I do not believe that he had VERY likely nothing.

[Noo Yawk]

Hi duke,

I think it's just as logical to assume that he'd raise a bunch of strong second best hands here and call a re-raise with them, or at the very least call a bet with alot of other hands. I also think that giving your opponent the option of checking through the river when you have a nut hand is not worth the risk when you have the potential to collect possibly 3 more bets, particularly after you got raised on the turn. Turn raises are not always semi-bluffs.

Regardless of the outcome, betting the nuts on the river is going to result in AT LEAST one more bet often enough. Alot more often than it would result in a fold, And a little more often than a check would result in a bluff.

[mike l.]

"I do not believe that he had VERY likely nothing."

neither do i. i believe he most likely had a small A (maybe 65% A and 35% some funky semibluff thing) and that mason's image convinced him to lay it down on the river. when you raise a tight player on the turn (who had raised preflop) and then he bets into you on the river anyway, that spells big trouble to even the more mediocre 80-160 player. only the most naive players fall for that stop n go, it's outdated by a few years at least.

had mason checked i think ep wouldve value bet the river and been checkraised and either paid off out of frustration or lay down then. im pretty firm on all this, all my experience spells this scenario out very clearly to me, ive seen it many many times. a check on the river is clearly the correct play and mason misplayed this one.